The aim of this article is to conduct a systematic review of articles on both the conceptualization and the measurement possibilities of legal consciousness (hereinafter LC). There are two main goals of this review: the unification of the so far highly diverse terminology and the exploration of recent measurement methods in the field.We argue that further development of LC research field is of crucial importance in current legal science, because LC itself can be understood and explored as one of the core elements of the legitimacy of any legal system (Jennes & Calavita, 2018;Young, 2014). Generally, two different ways of accessing legitimacy of law can be distinguished. First, legitimate law should be "justifiable" (i.e., considered as potentially just and acceptable by legal philosophers and other professionals). Second, legitimate law ought to be also "justified" (i.e., considered as actually just and acceptable by citizens Anuario de Psicología Jurídica (2021) 31 9-34 h t t p s : / / j o u r n a l s. c o p m a d r i d. o rg / a p j

Triangulation of the various methodological approaches towards the rule of law is highly desirable since it allows the combination of benefits and elimination of problematic aspects in each. The present article triangulates the conceptualizations of three approaches relating to the rule of law, namely Bedner's review of the rule of law theories, the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index, and the review by Horák et al. of empirical measurement of legal consciousness, and identifies the most significant problem as a lack of communication between them. More precisely, the theoretical conceptualizations are not fully prepared for RUNNING HEAD: TRIANGULATION OF THE RULE OF LAW empirical measurement, and the empirical tools do not reflect the theoretical debate and its outcomes. Therefore, a new conceptualization of the rule of law is proposed to overcome these issues and consequently make the empirical measurement more valid.

The nature of the Czech electoral system is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the 'Constitution'). The Constitution grants legislative power to the Czech Parliament, which consists of two chambers: the Chamber of Deputies (hereinafter the 'Chamber'); and the Senate. 1 To effectively secure the Senate's role in the system of checks and balances (which presupposes the different political compositions of both chambers), different electoral periods (of four and six years respectively) and systems are prescribed for the chambers. While 'elections to the Chamber of Deputies are held by secret ballot on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage, according to the principle of proportional representation', the Senate is elected 'according to the principle of a majoritarian system'. 2 The specifics of the electoral system, however, are left to be determined by the legislature and have been changed and also reviewed by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Court (hereinafter the 'Court') several times in the past three decades.

No abstract

Triangulation of the various methodological approaches towards the rule of law is highly desirable since it allows the combination of benefits and elimination of problematic aspects in each. The present article triangulates the conceptualizations of three approaches relating to the rule of law, namely Bedner’s review of the rule of law theories, the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, and the review by Horák et al. of empirical measurement of legal consciousness, and identifies the most significant problem as a lack of communication between them. More precisely, the theoretical conceptualizations are not fully prepared for empirical measurement, and the empirical tools do not reflect the theoretical debate and its outcomes. Therefore, a new conceptualization of the rule of law is proposed to overcome these issues and consequently make the empirical measurement more valid.